Consortium license - Revision history

142.177.81.73: restoring necessary links; implications of patent law and general examples of good Governance organizations need discussion here

2003-11-24T20:43:51Z

restoring necessary links; implications of patent law and general examples of good Governance organizations need discussion here

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:43, 24 November 2003
Line 2:		Line 2:

	#MCC - R&D shared, '''mandatory patent license''', no commercial product sharing		#MCC - R&D shared, '''mandatory patent license''', no commercial product sharing
	#[[Bluetooth]], X/Open and Java - [[trademark]] protects certification by ~~'''~~test suite~~'''~~ as a [[standard label]]		#[[Bluetooth]], X/Open and Java - [[trademark]] protects certification by [[test suite]] as a [[standard label]]
	#BSD - ~~'''~~open source~~'''~~ with some rights not in [[free software]] and agreement not to apply certain types of [[~~w:patent\|~~patent]] to extensions of code		#BSD - [[open source]] with some rights not in [[free software]] and agreement not to apply certain types of [[patent]] to extensions of code

	The extreme advantage of these licenses is that they are usually [[self-funding]], that is, no volunteer or donated labour or time is required. This can make the consortium quite independent in how it makes its decisions, and it can say 'no' even to the largest player in the consortium. Without which, of course, it would not really be a consortium, but more like the Microsoft "shared source" model.		The extreme advantage of these licenses is that they are usually [[self-funding]], that is, no volunteer or donated labour or time is required. This can make the consortium quite independent in how it makes its decisions, and it can say 'no' even to the largest player in the consortium. Without which, of course, it would not really be a consortium, but more like the Microsoft "[[shared source]]" model.

	They also provide much more power to prevent the [[bad copy problem]], e.g. X/Open test suite,		They also provide much more power to prevent the [[bad copy problem]], e.g. X/Open test suite,
	and [[self-interested fork problem]], e.g. Java consortium stopping Microsoft from inventing its own library and calling it Java.		and [[self-interested fork problem]], e.g. '''Java consortium''' stopping Microsoft from inventing its own library and calling it Java.

	A disadvantage is that they actually require a Governance ~~Organization~~ and may actually have to enforce license terms sometimes, since they do put some restrictions on users and tell them they can't do things they may want to do.		A disadvantage is that they actually require a [[Governance organization]] and may actually have to enforce license terms sometimes, since they do put some restrictions on users and tell them they can't do things they may want to do.

	If there are any [[factionally defined]] terms in the [[Consumerium License]], say limiting access to some data or code to some constrained uses or issues, it would become a '''consortium license''' within those [[parametric license]] terms. Whether this happens is up to the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]].		If there are any [[factionally defined]] terms in the [[Consumerium License]], say limiting access to some data or code to some constrained uses or issues, it would become a '''consortium license''' within those [[parametric license]] terms. Whether this happens is up to the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]].

80.186.81.123: fix useless redlinking

2003-11-24T14:45:22Z

fix useless redlinking

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:45, 24 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A '''Consortium license''' is one that priveleges contributors more than ordinary users, and reserves some rights even from [[paid or authorized user]]s, e.g. they may get no [[source code access]] or perhaps only under some terms. There are various types of consortia and license model:		A '''Consortium license''' is one that priveleges contributors more than ordinary users, and reserves some rights even from [[paid or authorized user]]s, e.g. they may get no source code access or perhaps only under some terms. There are various types of consortia and license model:

	#MCC - R&D shared, [[mandatory patent license]], no commercial product sharing		#MCC - R&D shared, '''mandatory patent license''', no commercial product sharing
	#X/Open and Java - [[trademark]] protects certification by [[test suite]] as a [[standard label]]		#[[Bluetooth]], X/Open and Java - [[trademark]] protects certification by '''test suite''' as a [[standard label]]
	#BSD - [[open source]] with some rights not in [[free software]] and agreement not to apply certain types of [[patent]] to extensions of code		#BSD - '''open source''' with some rights not in [[free software]] and agreement not to apply certain types of [[w:patent\|patent]] to extensions of code

	The extreme advantage of these licenses is that they are usually [[self-funding]], that is, no volunteer or donated labour or time is required. This can make the consortium quite independent in how it makes its decisions, and it can say 'no' even to the largest player in the consortium. Without which, of course, it would not really be a consortium, but more like the [[Microsoft]] "[[shared source]]" model.		The extreme advantage of these licenses is that they are usually [[self-funding]], that is, no volunteer or donated labour or time is required. This can make the consortium quite independent in how it makes its decisions, and it can say 'no' even to the largest player in the consortium. Without which, of course, it would not really be a consortium, but more like the Microsoft "shared source" model.

	They also provide much more power to prevent the [[bad copy problem]], e.g. X/Open test suite,		They also provide much more power to prevent the [[bad copy problem]], e.g. X/Open test suite,
	and [[self-interested fork problem]], e.g. Java consortium stopping Microsoft from inventing its own library and calling it Java.		and [[self-interested fork problem]], e.g. Java consortium stopping Microsoft from inventing its own library and calling it Java.

	A disadvantage is that they actually require a [[Governance Organization]] and may actually have to enforce license terms sometimes, since they do put some restrictions on users and tell them they can't do things they may want to do.		A disadvantage is that they actually require a Governance Organization and may actually have to enforce license terms sometimes, since they do put some restrictions on users and tell them they can't do things they may want to do.

	If there are any [[factionally defined]] terms in the [[Consumerium License]], say limiting access to some data or code to some constrained uses or issues, it would become a '''consortium license''' within those [[parametric license]] terms. Whether this happens is up to the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]].		If there are any [[factionally defined]] terms in the [[Consumerium License]], say limiting access to some data or code to some constrained uses or issues, it would become a '''consortium license''' within those [[parametric license]] terms. Whether this happens is up to the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]].

142.177.82.78 at 08:16, 24 November 2003

2003-11-24T08:16:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:16, 24 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A '''Consortium license''' is one that priveleges contributors more than ordinary users, and reserves some rights even from [[paid or authorized ~~users~~]], e.g. they may get no [[source code access]] or perhaps only under some terms. There are various types of consortia and license model:		A '''Consortium license''' is one that priveleges contributors more than ordinary users, and reserves some rights even from [[paid or authorized user]]s, e.g. they may get no [[source code access]] or perhaps only under some terms. There are various types of consortia and license model:

	#MCC - R&D shared, [[mandatory patent license]], no commercial product sharing		#MCC - R&D shared, [[mandatory patent license]], no commercial product sharing

142.177.82.78 at 08:16, 24 November 2003

2003-11-24T08:16:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:16, 24 November 2003
Line 6:		Line 6:

	The extreme advantage of these licenses is that they are usually [[self-funding]], that is, no volunteer or donated labour or time is required. This can make the consortium quite independent in how it makes its decisions, and it can say 'no' even to the largest player in the consortium. Without which, of course, it would not really be a consortium, but more like the [[Microsoft]] "[[shared source]]" model.		The extreme advantage of these licenses is that they are usually [[self-funding]], that is, no volunteer or donated labour or time is required. This can make the consortium quite independent in how it makes its decisions, and it can say 'no' even to the largest player in the consortium. Without which, of course, it would not really be a consortium, but more like the [[Microsoft]] "[[shared source]]" model.

			They also provide much more power to prevent the [[bad copy problem]], e.g. X/Open test suite,
			and [[self-interested fork problem]], e.g. Java consortium stopping Microsoft from inventing its own library and calling it Java.

			A disadvantage is that they actually require a [[Governance Organization]] and may actually have to enforce license terms sometimes, since they do put some restrictions on users and tell them they can't do things they may want to do.

	If there are any [[factionally defined]] terms in the [[Consumerium License]], say limiting access to some data or code to some constrained uses or issues, it would become a '''consortium license''' within those [[parametric license]] terms. Whether this happens is up to the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]].		If there are any [[factionally defined]] terms in the [[Consumerium License]], say limiting access to some data or code to some constrained uses or issues, it would become a '''consortium license''' within those [[parametric license]] terms. Whether this happens is up to the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]].

142.177.82.78 at 08:14, 24 November 2003

2003-11-24T08:14:09Z

New page

A '''Consortium license''' is one that priveleges contributors more than ordinary users, and reserves some rights even from [[paid or authorized users]], e.g. they may get no [[source code access]] or perhaps only under some terms. There are various types of consortia and license model:

#MCC - R&D shared, [[mandatory patent license]], no commercial product sharing
#X/Open and Java - [[trademark]] protects certification by [[test suite]] as a [[standard label]]
#BSD - [[open source]] with some rights not in [[free software]] and agreement not to apply certain types of [[patent]] to extensions of code

The extreme advantage of these licenses is that they are usually [[self-funding]], that is, no volunteer or donated labour or time is required. This can make the consortium quite independent in how it makes its decisions, and it can say 'no' even to the largest player in the consortium. Without which, of course, it would not really be a consortium, but more like the [[Microsoft]] "[[shared source]]" model.

If there are any [[factionally defined]] terms in the [[Consumerium License]], say limiting access to some data or code to some constrained uses or issues, it would become a '''consortium license''' within those [[parametric license]] terms. Whether this happens is up to the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]].